It simply amazes me that one can find a valid excuse for a sinful behavior by suggesting that some other behavior is just as sinful.
Smoking damages a body and is very addictive and unless one smokes in a vacuum sealed chamber, smoking hurts those around you.
If you want to have a discussion about over eating, then fine. We have done that many times. Its a worthy discussion.
You want to talk about the evil of pork, great, we have done that too and it is a worthy discussion.
You want to talk about the evils of caffeine great! We have discussed that more than once too....
But PLEASE people, none of those things is an excuse for lighting up and ingesting tobacco into your lungs. Smoking damages the body. period. end of discussion. it damages the body very clearly, it kills people, it harms those around the smoker, and it has an addictive nature that keeps you coming back for more.
One cannot smoke in moderation and not damage your body. One cannot smoke on occasion for recreation and not damage your body.
No amount of bacon or fried chicken or chicken fried in bacon grease undoes the simple fact that smoking DAMAGES the body!
Doing willfull damage to the Temple of God is a SIN.
If you are attempting to justify smoking using ANY argument at all, you are attempting to justify sin. period.
Some complain that AFF has become "Post-Apostolic". This thread makes me wonder if we have "Apostolics" that have really become Post-Christian.
It's not a matter of aceepting smoking. It is a matter of logic and why some things are singled out and others are not touched because they are accepted...
It's not a matter of aceepting smoking. It is a matter of logic and why some things are singled out and others are not touched because they are accepted...
It's not a matter of aceepting smoking. It is a matter of logic and why some things are singled out and others are not touched because they are accepted...
No its a matter of justyifing sin because you see someone else sinning.
like I said, if you want to talk about glutony fine we have done that before and its a worthy discussion.
but dont sit here and give a pass to smoking (which will kill you) because some preacher somewhere ate too much fried chicken.
Dont tell a poor smoker that they are being picked on when in fact, they are killing themselves and harming those they smoke around.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
It simply amazes me that one can find a valid excuse for a sinful behavior by suggesting that some other behavior is just as sinful.
Smoking damages a body and is very addictive and unless one smokes in a vacuum sealed chamber, smoking hurts those around you.
If you want to have a discussion about over eating, then fine. We have done that many times. Its a worthy discussion.
You want to talk about the evil of pork, great, we have done that too and it is a worthy discussion.
You want to talk about the evils of caffeine great! We have discussed that more than once too....
But PLEASE people, none of those things is an excuse for lighting up and ingesting tobacco into your lungs. Smoking damages the body. period. end of discussion. it damages the body very clearly, it kills people, it harms those around the smoker, and it has an addictive nature that keeps you coming back for more.
One cannot smoke in moderation and not damage your body. One cannot smoke on occasion for recreation and not damage your body.
No amount of bacon or fried chicken or chicken fried in bacon grease undoes the simple fact that smoking DAMAGES the body!
Doing willfull damage to the Temple of God is a SIN.
If you are attempting to justify smoking using ANY argument at all, you are attempting to justify sin. period.
Some complain that AFF has become "Post-Apostolic". This thread makes me wonder if we have "Apostolics" that have really become Post-Christian.
Then Cigars are OK?
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
It simply amazes me that one can find a valid excuse for a sinful behavior by suggesting that some other behavior is just as sinful.
Smoking damages a body and is very addictive and unless one smokes in a vacuum sealed chamber, smoking hurts those around you.
If you want to have a discussion about over eating, then fine. We have done that many times. Its a worthy discussion.
You want to talk about the evil of pork, great, we have done that too and it is a worthy discussion.
You want to talk about the evils of caffeine great! We have discussed that more than once too....
But PLEASE people, none of those things is an excuse for lighting up and ingesting tobacco into your lungs. Smoking damages the body. period. end of discussion. it damages the body very clearly, it kills people, it harms those around the smoker, and it has an addictive nature that keeps you coming back for more.
One cannot smoke in moderation and not damage your body. One cannot smoke on occasion for recreation and not damage your body.
No amount of bacon or fried chicken or chicken fried in bacon grease undoes the simple fact that smoking DAMAGES the body!
Doing willfull damage to the Temple of God is a SIN.
If you are attempting to justify smoking using ANY argument at all, you are attempting to justify sin. period.
Some complain that AFF has become "Post-Apostolic". This thread makes me wonder if we have "Apostolics" that have really become Post-Christian.
I really haven't posted much on AFF for a while, until the past few days.
I have noticed that the prevailing midset here has definitely become what I would describe as post-Apostolic.
The sheer hostility that meets anything resembling what would be considered mainstream conservative Apostolic thought is mind boggling.
It's like there are these little gangs of roving trolls waiting for an opportunity to dog pile anyone who suggests that Acts 2:38 is essential, or that holiness standards are a good idea.
Things really, really have changed here, and this thread is yet another example.
__________________ "Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit:
And the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel."
I really haven't posted much on AFF for a while, until the past few days.
I have noticed that the prevailing midset here has definitely become what I would describe as post-Apostolic.
The sheer hostility that meets anything resembling what would be considered mainstream conservative Apostolic thought is mind boggling.
It's like there are these little gangs of roving trolls waiting for an opportunity to dog pile anyone who suggests that Acts 2:38 is essential, or that holiness standards are a good idea.
Things really, really have changed here, and this thread is yet another example.
What we question is inconsistency, Amos.
But, in the words of an immortal former FCF/NFCF poster, "Consistency is over rated"
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
But, in the words of an immortal former FCF/NFCF poster, "Consistency is over rated"
Whoever used to say that probably didn't have sense enough to pour water out of a boot with the directions on the heel.
The trouble, however, with the consistency argument is that everybody thinks they can define it arbitrarily, and that it can basically be utilized to explain away anything and everything.
Total consistency in this mortal coil is a myth.
It doesn't exist.
__________________ "Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit:
And the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel."
Whoever used to say that probably didn't have sense enough to pour water out of a boot with the directions on the heel.
The trouble, however, with the consistency argument is that everybody thinks they can define it arbitrarily, and that it can basically be utilized to explain away anything and everything.
Total consistency in this mortal coil is a myth.
It doesn't exist.
You might be surprised if I told you who it was.
However, I go back to my original premise. I haven't seen one person on this thread who said, "Oh, smoking is a great thing, and should not be preached against!"
What I have seen is, "How come we make smoking a mortal sin, but put our stamp of approval on gluttony?"
The Bible speaks often about gluttony, and in one case connects the "drunkard and the glutton" in the same category.
But, how many sermons have you heard at General Conference about gluttony? How many Bible studies in your local assembly have you taught about gluttony?
That's where my frustration lies.
And, I get even more frustrated when these questions are asked, and someone says "They don't believe in anything any more, it's a non-Apostolic forum".
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
Hybrid Mode
